G.R. No. 94902-06 - Kho vs. Makalintal

On July 26, 1990, Branch LXXVII, Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque denied petitioners’ Motion to Quash search warrants issued against them.
Petitioners Benjamin V. Kho and Elizabeth Alindogan filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, seeking to restrain the NBI from using or retaining items seized under the warrants.

May 15, 1990 – NBI Agent Max B. Salvador applied for two warrants against Kho’s residence at No. 45 Bb. Ramona Tirona St., BF Homes, Phase I, Parañaque, based on confidential information and personal surveillance that unlicensed firearms and “chop-chop” vehicles were stored there.
May 15, 1990 – NBI Agent Eduardo T. Arugay applied for three warrants against Kho’s house at No. 326 McDivitt St., Brgy. Moonwalk, Parañaque, on similar grounds.
The trial judge conducted the mandatory personal examination of the affiants and their witnesses, then issued Search Warrant Nos. 90-11 to 90-15.

May 16, 1990 – NBI teams executed Warrants 90-11 and 90-12 at BF Homes, recovering high-powered firearms, ammunition, radio equipment, and vehicles.
May 16, 1990 – Concurrent execution of Warrants 90-13, 90-14, and 90-15 at Brgy. Moonwalk, yielding additional firearms, explosives, radio transceivers, two vans, and a motorcycle.
Verification by Camp Crame’s Firearms and Explosives Unit and relevant radio and motor vehicle authorities confirmed the seized items were unlicensed and unregistered.
May 22, 1990 – Separate returns filed, requesting continued NBI custody of the items.

May 28, 1990 – Petitioners moved to quash the warrants, alleging lack of probable cause, unconstitutional general warrants, procedural defects, violations of service requirements, and lawful possession of the items.
July 26, 1990 – Trial court denied the Motion to Quash.

Whether the search warrants were issued without probable cause.
Whether the warrants constitute unconstitutional general warrants due to insufficient description of items.
Whether the issuing judge failed to comply with constitutional and statutory procedural requirements in examining affiants and witnesses.
Whether the service and execution of the warrants violated Revised Rules of Court.
Whether petitioners lawfully possessed the seized items, precluding NBI authority to confiscate them.
Whether the petition is rendered moot and academic by subsequent institution of criminal cases.